Reply With QuoteA punch, red. An elbow, red. The bit in between is fine?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67372283
5-0 Havertz was a red but only 3-2 that the Newc thug was a red!!
No mention what happens next as they're effectively saying VAR failed on both those points.
4-1 that the goal stands. No censure of Raya's failure to cut out cross!
A punch, red. An elbow, red. The bit in between is fine?
Maybe it's my bias, but Havertz's feet were on the floor, no studs showing and it was the trailing leg that caught him.Originally Posted by PSRB
Shocked it was 5-0 that that should have been red.
That scum defender went in two footed, studs showing, feet slightly off the floor, and he got a yellow against the Chavs
My view is, it could have been a red and wouldn't have had too many complaints if it was. Same with the Eddie challenge on the scum keeper in the NLD. Thankfully the ref went on the lenient side
I no longer have the faintest idea what is and isn't a red card (happy for you make a joke at my expense here)
What I do know is that reading the laws of the game isn't going to help you. The law on violent conduct, for example, says a player is guilty, and shown a red card, if they intentionally strike an opponent in the head or face, with their hand or arm, unless the force used is negligible.
The VAR apparently left it as yellow because 'it wasn't an elbow' ('with their hand or arm', remember!). I can only assume that 2 of that panel of 5 believe the force was negligible.
The two footed spurs tackle- if that isn't a red card I ****ing give up. Apparently the Havertz tackle was a red because it was dangerous and the sort of tackle that shouldn't be part of the game.......
Posting Permissions
